The game of Rummy is a game of skill, not entirely based on chance. To establish a common gambling house, it must be proven that the owner is making a profit or gain from the game.

Headnote:
common gambling house - Hyderabad Gambling Act - Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - The court analyzes the definition of a common gambling house under Section 3 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act and the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7. It examines the evidence presented and the arguments made by both parties. The court concludes that the club does not meet the definition of a common gambling house and that the game of Rummy is a game of skill, not entirely based on chance. It also finds that the charges made by the club do not establish that it was making a profit or gain from the game of Rummy. Therefore, the court upholds the High Court's decision to quash the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Andhra Pradesh appeals against the conviction of the respondents under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act. The question is whether the premises of a Club known as the 'Crescent Recreation Club' were being used as a common gambling house and whether the respondents were gambling therein. The police raided the club and found evidence of gambling. The Magistrate convicted the respondents, but the Sessions Judge recommended quashing the conviction. The High Court accepted the recommendation and this appeal is brought against that judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzes the definition of a 'common gambling house' under the Hyderabad Act and the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Act. It examines the evidence presented and the arguments made by both parties. The court concludes that the club does not meet the definition of a common gambling house and that the game of Rummy is a game of skill, not entirely based on chance. It also finds that the charges made by the club do not establish that it was making a profit or gain from the game of Rummy. Therefore, the court upholds the High Court's decision to quash the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the interpretation of the definition of a common gambling house, the nature of the game of Rummy, and the evidence presented. It establishes that the club in question does not meet the definition of a common gambling house and that the game of Rummy is a game of skill. It also emphasizes the importance of proving that the owner of the house or club is making a profit or gain from the game in order to establish the offense.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J.: The State of Andhra Pradesh appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in which, accepting a reference by the Sessions Judge, the conviction of the respondents under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Hyderabad Gambling Act (2 of 1305 F) ordered by the 5th City Magistrate at Secunderabad has been set aside.

2. The short question in this case is whether the premises of a Club known as the "Crescent Recreation Club" situated in Secunderabad were being used as a common gambling house and whether the several respondents who were present at the time of the raid by the police could be said to be gambling therein. The facts of the case are as follows :-

3. On May 4, 1963, the police headed by Circle Inspector Krishnaswami raided the premises of the club. They found respondents 1-5 playing a card game known as "Rummy" for stakes. At the time of the raid, there were some counters on the table as also money and of course the playing cards with the players. Respondent No. 6, the Treasurer of the Club, was also present and was holding the stake money which is popularly known as "kitty." The 7th respondent is the Secretary of the Club and he has been joined as an accused, because he was in charge of the management of the club. The kitty which the sixth respondent held was Rs. 74.62 nP and a further sum of Rupees 218/- was recovered from the table of the 6th respondent, 66 counters were on the table and some more money was found with the persons who were indulging in the game. The evidence of the Circle Inspector is that he had received credible information that the premises of the club were being used as a common gambling house and he raided it and found evidence, because instruments of gambling were found and the persons present were actually gambling. The Magistrate convicted all the seven respondents and sentenced them to various fines, with imprisonment in default. The respondents then filed an application for revision before the Sessions Judge, Secunderabad who made a reference to the High Court under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recommending the quashing of the conviction and the setting aside of the sentences. This recommendation was accepted by the learned single Judge in the High Court and the present appeal is brought against his judgment by special leave granted by this Court.

4. The Hyderabad Act follows in outline the provisions of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 in force in India. Section 3 of the Act defines a "common gambling house". The translation of the Urdu text placed before us was found to be inaccurate but we have compared the Urdu definition with the definition of "common gaming house" in the Public Gambling Act, and we are of opinion that that represents a truer translation than the one included in the official publication. We accordingly quote the definition from the Indian Act, adding thereto the explanation which is not to be found in the Indian Act. Common gambling-house" according to the definition means.:

"any house, walled enclosure, room or place in which cards, dice, tables or other instruments of gaming are kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such house, enclosure, room or place, whether by way of charge for the use of the instruments of gaming, or of the house, enclosure, room or place, or otherwise howsoever."

Explanation : The word house includes a tent and all enclosed space.

The contention in regard to this definition is that the evidence clearly disclosed that the club was being used as a common gambling house and therefore the penal provisions of the Act were clearly attracted. We are concerned additionally with several sections from the Gambling Act which need to be seen. Section 4, which follows in outline the corresponding section in the Public Gambling Act, provides for penalty for an owner, occupier or person using common gambling house and includes within the reach of the section person

Click Here to Read the rest of this document